Breaking: Supremes Strike Down Violent Video Game Law (Update: Video Games are Protected Under the First Amendment) (Update: Custer Gets His Revenge!)
[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here. Or by Twitter @AaronWorthing.]
Just heard via Scotusblog which likes to live blog when they release their opinions. I will share details as I learn of them.
Update: Here’s the opinion. Scalia wrote the majority opinion, which isn’t too surprising, because he is pretty bully on freedom of expression. Interestingly Thomas, who agrees with Scalia a very large percent of the time, dissents. And I don’t want to imply that Thomas simply apes Scalia. In fact on at least two occasions it appears that Scalia and Thomas disagreed, but eventually Scalia came over to his way of thinking. The first was on the subject of cross burning, and the second was on the need in criminal cases to prove every sentence enhancement beyond a reasonable doubt.
Mind you, I have not had a chance to read any of it yet. Which I will now do.
Update: Also, I previously posted on the case, here.
Update: I am not going to live blog reading the opinion, but this line is very significant:
California correctly acknowledges that video games qualify for First Amendment protection. The Free Speech Clause exists principally to protect discourse on public matters, but we have long recognized that it is difficult to distinguish politics from entertainment, and dangerous to try. “Everyone is familiar with instances of propaganda through fiction. What is one man’s amusement, teaches another’s doctrine.” Winters v. New York, 333 U. S. 507, 510 (1948). Like the protected books, plays, and movies that preceded them, video games communicate ideas—and even social messages—through many familiar literary devices (such as characters, dialogue, plot, and music) and through features distinctive to the medium (such as the player’s interaction with the virtual world). That suffices to confer First Amendment protection.
If memory serves, many lower courts recognized that video games were a form of expression, but I don’t believe the Supreme Court has ever said so before. I particularly appreciate how he understands that even the way the players interact with their world can be expressive.
Update: Some notes from Scalia’s opinion.
Scalia takes a few shots at his colleagues in the footnotes. In footnote 1, he writes:
JUSTICE ALITO distinguishes Stevens on several grounds that seem to us ill founded. He suggests,…that Stevens did not apply strict scrutiny. If that is so (and we doubt it), it would make this an a fortiori case. He says, … that the California Act punishes the sale or rental rather than the “creation” or “possession” of violent depictions. That distinction appears nowhere in Stevens itself, and for good reason: It would make permissible the prohibition of printing or selling books—though not the writing of them. Whether government regulation applies to creating, distributing, or consuming speech makes no difference.
Which sounds right to me. I mean that is the dodge they tried on Citizens United, which I took apart by saying:
“But wait,” I hear you say, “didn’t all those news stories say this was about campaign expenditures?” Well, this is where the media has been incredibly disingenuous on this topic. The FEC said that they could not purchase advertising. So you can judge for yourself whether this sounds more like a mere restriction on spending, or a restriction on freedom of expression.
Meanwhile he gets a little harsh on Thomas in footnote 3:
JUSTICE THOMAS ignores the holding of Erznoznik, and denies that persons under 18 have any constitutional right to speak or be spoken to without their parents’ consent. He cites no case, state or federal, supporting this view, and to our knowledge there is none.
For judges that is pretty harsh and it goes on in some detail.
And Scalia gives us some of the phrasing he is famous for:
Certainly the books we give children to read—or read to them when they are younger—contain no shortage of gore. Grimm’s Fairy Tales, for example, are grim indeed. As her just deserts for trying to poison Snow White, the wicked queen is made to dance in red hot slippers “till she fell dead on the floor, a sad example of envy and jealousy.” … Cinderella’s evil stepsisters have their eyes pecked out by doves. … And Hansel and Gretel (children!) kill their captor by baking her in an oven. …
And there is a fun walk down memory lane at the terror of other new technology turning our kids to crime, dated at the turn of the 20th Century. Everything old is new again, I suppose.
And I like how he disposed of the interactivity argument:
California claims that video games present special problems because they are “interactive,” in that the player participates in the violent action on screen and determines its outcome. … As for the argument that video games enable participation in the violent action, that seems to us more a matter of degree than of kind. As Judge Posner has observed, all literature is interactive. “[T]he better it is, the more interactive. Literature when it is successful draws the reader into the story, makes him identify with the characters, invites him to judge them and quarrel with them, to experience their joys and sufferings as the reader’s own.
And this amuses me:
JUSTICE ALITO has done considerable independent research to identify, … video games in which “the violence is astounding[.]”
Which raises the question, if video game violence warps people’s minds, then what has he just done to himself? Meanwhile, on pages 12 and 13, he tears apart the psychological evidence, and then declares that the law is a joke in his mind because all that is needed is a parent’s (or uncle’s) consent:
The California Legislature is perfectly willing to leave this dangerous, mind-altering material in the handsof children so long as one parent (or even an aunt or uncle) says it’s OK. And there are not even any requirements as to how this parental or avuncular relationship is to be verified; apparently the child’s or putative parent’s, aunt’s, or uncle’s say-so suffices. That is not how one addresses a serious social problem.
That isn’t just a policy criticism, but then it means that the law suffers from being under-inclusive.
And on page 15, he argues that the law is not necessary anyway because of voluntary ratings.
Otherwise, its pretty direct “free speech beats public panic” stuff. Not a bad opinion but there is a certain been-there-done-that to the proceedings.
Please note, by the way, that this is the fully-joined opinion of five of the justices. Two concur, and two dissent. Expect more updates as I work through the other opinions.
Update: I read through Alito’s opinion. He considers this law to be impermissibly vague (something I mentioned in my previous post on the subject), but wants to encourage legislatures to try narrower laws. Indeed, much of the opinion seems to be directly written in order to teach legislatures how to write laws he is more likely to uphold. And in doing so, he gets all living constitution about it:
I disagree, however, with the approach taken in the Court’s opinion. In considering the application of unchanging constitutional principles to new and rapidly evolving technology, this Court should proceed with caution. We should make every effort to understand the new technology. We should take into account the possibility that developing technology may have important societal implications that will become apparent only with time. We should not jump to the conclusion that new technology is fundamentally the same as some older thing with which we are familiar.
And for extra fun, on page 15, the infamous Custer’s Revenge is mentioned. Alito writes about it “in another [game], the goal is to rape Native American women[.]”
Of course it might be useful to actually see what he is upset about. Now, I have video of this game in action, but you have to be very careful and suppress any rapey desires. I’ll even put it below the fold because it is so shocking…
[Update: I can’t post videos right now, so here is a link to it. And here’s a screenshot.]
Okay, now did you end up running out and raping anyone?
Seriously, there is some messed up stuff in video games, but that is a very weak example to complain about. The game is more offensive for looking like a complete POS (even by Atari standards) than for its “violence.”
Update: Thomas’ dissent, is just strange. It can be summed up with this line:
“The freedom of speech,” as originally understood, does not include a right to speak to minors without going through the minors’ parents or guardian
But that simply isn’t the case. Children could buy newspapers and books without parental consent, and they could listen to people speak without parental consent.
Anyway, I think it can be best refuted by quoting more from Scalia’s opinion, in footnote 3:
And it perhaps follows from this that the state has the power to enforce parental prohibitions—to require, for example, that the promoters of a rock concert exclude those minors whose parents have advised the promoters that their children are forbidden to attend. But it does not follow that the state has the power to prevent children from hearing or saying anything without their parents’ prior consent. The latter would mean, for example, that it could be made criminal to admit persons under 18 to a political rally without their parents’ prior written consent—even a political rally in support of laws against corporal punishment of children, or laws in favor of greater rights for minors. And what is good for First Amendment rights of speech must be good for First Amendment rights of religion as well: It could be made criminal to admit a person under 18 to church, or to give a person under 18 a religious tract, without his parents’ prior consent…. Such laws do not enforce parental authority over children’s speech and religion; they impose governmental authority, subject only to a parental veto.
Breyer meanwhile thinks the void for vagueness concept only applies to the age of the purchaser, and not to the content prohibited, which is equally bizarre. Meanwhile Breyer cites a lot more social science on the subject, and on page 29, he actually manages to make a good point:
But what sense does it make to forbid selling to a 13-year-old boy a magazine with an image of a nude woman, while protecting a sale to that 13year-old of an interactive video game in which he actively, but virtually, binds and gags the woman, then tortures and kills her? What kind of First Amendment would permit the government to protect children by restricting sales of that extremely violent video game only when the woman—bound, gagged, tortured, and killed—is also topless?
But to me that just says to me that we need to throw out sexual obscenity as a legal doctrine, if only because it susceptible to exactly these kinds of arguments. It’s pernicious.
And that is it, my commentary (at this point) on the whole opinion.
[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]
Schwarzenegger’s legacy is rapidly being reduced to a failed marriage and penchant for screwing the maid.
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 6/27/2011 @ 7:41 amThomas dissents to tell us there is no First Amendment right to speak to minors (or for minors to access speech) without going through their parents. What a guy.
stone (b5a79f) — 6/27/2011 @ 7:41 amThomas dissents to tell us there is no First Amendment right to speak to minors (or for minors to access speech) without going through their parents. What a character.
stone (970646) — 6/27/2011 @ 7:42 amhappy
by the end of it, though, it was brown on the docket, fwiw.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 6/27/2011 @ 7:42 amStone/imdw – why don’t you go play with Kimberlin, or post links to Patterico’s home, or play in traffic?
JD (d48c3b) — 6/27/2011 @ 7:45 amyes Brown will be disappointed too
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 6/27/2011 @ 7:47 amThis is a huge disaster for all parents who needed the force of law behind them if they didn’t want their kids to have a particular video game.
MayBee (081489) — 6/27/2011 @ 7:49 ammaybe we can make a video game for parents where they can learn how to defend their home and their wee little babies from brutal assaults by violent video games
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 6/27/2011 @ 7:51 amBut the whining, Maybee? How can parents withstand that?
SarahW (af7312) — 6/27/2011 @ 7:52 amGenius.
Or a video game where parents can learn to say “no” to little Johnny. Maybe that could be an iPhone App, like Angry Birds.
MayBee (081489) — 6/27/2011 @ 7:54 amThe game would have different levels, Sarah. The whining would be very challenging.
Level 5 would be Johnny throwing a tantrum at the store that he really really wants Frosted Flakes. What kind of monster could press the “no” button????
MayBee (081489) — 6/27/2011 @ 7:56 amMaybe they would work up to it gradually, first learning to withstand Lee Stranahan’s cat.
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Lee-Stranahans-Cat/218967694810358
SarahW (af7312) — 6/27/2011 @ 8:00 amI had to interrupt my earlier listen, but have Lee’s show up again. Only two cat appearances so far. Probably saving them for sweeps.
Lincolntf (85daa5) — 6/27/2011 @ 8:05 ammaybee
every modern video game machine allows for parents to control what their kids play on it. this is hardly a disaster.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 6/27/2011 @ 8:08 amevery modern video game machine allows for parents to control what their kids play on it.
Not if their kids really whine, Aaron. Parents can not fight that.
😉
MayBee (081489) — 6/27/2011 @ 8:12 amAaron- I should be more clear that I’m not serious. One of the things that really irks me these days is parents who cannot enforce their own parenting rules, and want the state to step in and make things illegal to make their jobs easier.
MayBee (081489) — 6/27/2011 @ 8:32 amPeople who want to limit advertising dastardly sugary cereals on children’s programs, or make Happy Meal toys illegal.
If Happy Meal toys are legal, how could I ever possibly parent my children?!?!
JD (d48c3b) — 6/27/2011 @ 8:38 amFreedom 1
Nanny State 0
now, if they will just pass the ban on open carry here and get Moonbeam to sign it into law… 8)
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 6/27/2011 @ 8:40 ami am routinely entertained while out and about by “parents” who’s spawn are on a rampage and non-responsive to their whiny attempts at regaining “control” of their darling little barbarian.
one good dose of “command voice” usually makes the brat civilized, at least until i can depart the scene.
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 6/27/2011 @ 8:45 ammaybee
ah, so you are saying i had a sarcasm detection failure? sorry.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 6/27/2011 @ 8:49 am“One of the things that really irks me these days is parents who cannot enforce their own parenting rules, and want the state to step in and make things illegal to make their jobs easier.”
Key is “these days.” Apparently Thomas thinks that the First Amendment froze in place the patriarchical values of the founders toward how the state relates to running a family. Oh the joys that originalism brings — like citing to letters that Thomas Jefferson wrote to his family about how to raise kids.
stone (0eb116) — 6/27/2011 @ 8:52 amI think the election law case out of Arizona, is more significant, but this was a no brainer.
ian cormac (72470d) — 6/27/2011 @ 8:52 amThe parent video challenge will have a Genette weapon that helps geezers understand ironic cultural references of the young. It leaves as soon as you catch a serious irony going over the Gennettes head.
SarahW (af7312) — 6/27/2011 @ 8:54 amAce, bless his heart, actually once argued with a straight blog-face that parents could not be trusted to withstand whining without the force of law to back them up.
Especially as regards Captain Crunch.
SarahW (af7312) — 6/27/2011 @ 8:58 amone good dose of “command voice” usually makes the brat civilized, at least until i can depart the scene.
Command voice often works, but I make a modest proposal:
when we are out and about in places like WalMart or the srocery Store, let us all be more tolerant of the kids throwing the tantrums and the parents who are ignoring it/using command voice.
I believe that it is often fear of the evil eye from the judgmental public that encourages parents to just give in to the tantrum or to engage in whiney cajoling. Let’s all hail the parent studiously ignoring the fit being thrown. Chances are the tantrum tactic will be soon leaving that kid’s repertoire.
MayBee (081489) — 6/27/2011 @ 8:58 amStone/imdw – why don’t you go play with Kimberlin? Or somewhere that you have not been banned?
JD (b98cae) — 6/27/2011 @ 8:59 amMayBee – the youngest has quit throwing tantrums. Now, she bites her lower lip, and her jaw starts to quiver. She can do it on command.
JD (29e1cd) — 6/27/2011 @ 9:05 am“Ace, bless his heart, actually once argued with a straight blog-face that parents could not be trusted to withstand whining without the force of law to back them up.”
My sympathy isn’t about their ability to withstand it, but that there’s a multi-billion dollar industry with the profit motive to increase the whining, but there really aren’t the same resources on the parents side. But note the law wouldn’t alleviate the whining. The law requires parental permission. The kids would be whining to get their parents permission.
stone (7c85b9) — 6/27/2011 @ 9:07 am“Ace, bless his heart, actually once argued with a straight blog-face that parents could not be trusted to withstand whining without the force of law to back them up.”
My sympathy isn’t about their ability to withstand it, but that there’s a multi-billion dollar industry with the profit motive to increase the whining, while there really aren’t the same resources on the parents side. But the CA law wouldn’t alleviate the whining. The law requires parental permission. The kids would be whining to get their parents permission.
stone (58a4f2) — 6/27/2011 @ 9:10 amImdw needs the law. To be strong. To parent for him. Shocka.
While you are at in, could you explain the psychology behind changing identities multiple times, so as to avoid a ban, to comment at a site where your behavior has been bipolar at best, and a place where it is clear you are not welcome?
JD (306f5d) — 6/27/2011 @ 9:18 amOMG! We need a billion dollar industry to help parents withstand their own children’s whining. Perhaps we can call it the government. The government doesn’t have a profit motive, so the things they deign to make available to us are good and pure.
It is truly a sad day when parents are going to be put upon to have to withstand the trauma of deciding whether or not to give their kids permission to do something. That is NOT what parenting is supposed to be about. That is what the government is for.
MayBee (081489) — 6/27/2011 @ 9:23 amStone
> My sympathy isn’t about their ability to withstand it, but that there’s a multi-billion dollar industry with the profit motive to increase the whining, while there really aren’t the same resources on the parents side
Parents don’t need multi-billion dollar industries to back then up. they just need… stones.
(do you see what i just did there? I punned on your name!)
Anyway, if you don’t like it, petition to have the first amendment changed. there is no need to ignore the constitution for this.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 6/27/2011 @ 9:34 amBreyer, was embarassingly bad on this case, who voted for him, again, although philosophically
ian cormac (72470d) — 6/27/2011 @ 9:41 amI agree more with Thomas, the problem is the government has usurped the family’s role, as gatekeeper.
Stone, if you understand parents can withstand the whining, why would increase of it even matter?
SarahW (af7312) — 6/27/2011 @ 9:44 amWould Thomas claim that minors have no First Amendment right to speak even to each other? Minors sometimes make video games. It would be unusual for to make one prominent enough to sell in stores, but they certainly distribute them informally.
roy (d946db) — 6/27/2011 @ 9:47 am“Parents don’t need multi-billion dollar industries to back then up. they just need… stones.”
It’s not really a question of need. I don’t think this law was addressed to that. I don’t think we’ll be able to get over the fact that pretty much anyone has a first amendment right to talk to your kids, no matter what you think. That there are individuals and entities with the resources to direct messages to your kids, and that there are individuals and entities with intense motivation to get your kids to want or do things. I wonder if parents or others report that kids are worse these days.
“Anyway, if you don’t like it, petition to have the first amendment changed. there is no need to ignore the constitution for this.”
How about ignoring the founders? That Thomas opinion really is something else. You think we could ever confirm someone as kooky on the liberal side? Hell we had a hard time confirming a former prosecutor!
stone (0ef4c5) — 6/27/2011 @ 9:59 am“Parents don’t need multi-billion dollar industries to back then up. they just need… stones.”
It’s not really a question of need. I don’t think this law was addressed to that. I don’t think we’ll be able to get over the fact that pretty much anyone has a first amendment right to talk to your kids, no matter what you think. That there are individuals and entities with the resources to direct messages to your kids, and that there are individuals and entities with intense motivation to get your kids to want or do things. I wonder if parents or others report that kids are worse these days.
“Anyway, if you don’t like it, petition to have the first amendment changed. there is no need to ignore the constitution for this.”
How about the founders? That Thomas opinion really is something else. You think we could ever confirm someone as kooky on the liberal side? Hell we had a hard time confirming a former prosecutor!
stone (346e4d) — 6/27/2011 @ 10:00 amDamn, and that “because it’s against the law” argument worked so well when the baby boomers heard it from THEIR parents.
Kevin M (73dcc9) — 6/27/2011 @ 10:01 am“Stone, if you understand parents can withstand the whining, why would increase of it even matter?”
Just because it can be withstood doesn’t mean more of it wouldn’t be annoying, that is “matter.”
stone (346e4d) — 6/27/2011 @ 10:02 amNot being a parent, I really don’t have a dog in this fight; but, I would think that just as mockery and laughter works so well in “stiffling” Leftists,
AD-RtR/OS! (762310) — 6/27/2011 @ 10:05 amit should work also with children – who, after all, like Leftists, are just trying to satisfy their immediate wants regardless of the costs to others.
So why should the government care about annoyance. Life is annoying, get used to it.
SarahW (af7312) — 6/27/2011 @ 10:12 amOnce more we have jurisprudence stating that the First Amendment outlaws outlawing video games. But I am still constrained in my speech about political candidates.
Have Blue (dbbcd4) — 6/27/2011 @ 10:17 amCould this ruling affect the newly-passed laws that restrict the sale of Happy Meals with toys?
aunursa (323789) — 6/27/2011 @ 10:17 amYou want to be annoyed?
MayBee (081489) — 6/27/2011 @ 10:27 amDo something the government doesn’t like. Nobody can annoy you like the government can annoy you.
Perhaps all of those toys should be altered to have the faces of politicians?
But then, kids – being smarter than the average bear – would reject them.
You have to wonder if the Nanny-Staters will ever realize what the meaning is of the phrases:
AD-RtR/OS! (762310) — 6/27/2011 @ 10:28 amCongress shall make no law…
Or, Shall not be infringed…
?
@ MayBee,
I believe that it is often fear of the evil eye from the judgmental public that encourages parents to just give in to the tantrum or to engage in whiney cajoling.
MayBee,
22 years ago I had a little guy who threw himself on the ground in the supermarket in front of a big display of plastic balls in double-stacked baskets and proceeded to throw the stereotypical tantrum of a 2 year old determined to get what he wanted. I told his older sister to keep walking and ignore him (after I had firmly told him no and told him to get up from the floor). I was of course, mortified but stuck to my guns.
Unfortunately, a clerk ran over to him and cooed to him that everything would be alright and that next time he came, he could get a ball! I marched the 6 feet over to her, scooped up the little rebel who was in shock that a strange lady promised him what he wanted (while simultaneously shooting daggers at me), and marched him off with a sound scolding.
So even if parents have the fortitude to say no, mean no, and not waver, it seems there is always a do-gooder attempting to assuage the hurt feelings of the little spitfire doing his best to rule his world.
Dana (4eca6e) — 6/27/2011 @ 10:38 amWhile I don’t accept Thomas’s reasoning this time, the idea he’s a kook for a view that minors are in a special ‘leave them be’ category to some extent is hardly ‘kooky’.
Thomas wants to leave that option to the states, and I accept that actually, but I do think it would be a shame for our civil rights to get less protection than government’s intrusions into those rights (which are rarely left to states anymore).
Anyway, ‘Stone’ takes a cheap shot while begging for the government to protect his fragile little mind from Grand Theft Auto, which I find ironic given he appears to be closer to Thomas’s view than he realizes.
Anyway, let me mention a significant fact: your video game console has a V-Chip like capability. You can control the kinds of games it plays, if you worry your kids are crossing the line. I certainly wouldn’t want kids playing a lot of the games I enjoy until they are old enough.
But on the other hand, a parent’s best recourse is simply to raise their kids in a way where they know some things cross the line of decency and age appropriateness. They are probably going to encounter this kind of stuff wherever they go. Graphic games on PSPs in the bus or field trip, a friend’s video game at their house, etc.
It’s a bit worrisome, actually. I don’t see how it’s possible for a kid to be as innocent as my wife or I managed to be, with universal internet access or incredibly sophisticated and fun games that cover very adult themes.
Dustin (c16eca) — 6/27/2011 @ 10:53 amBut…but…Dustin, to use the restrictions available in the “v-chip” would necessitate that the parents utilize some “judgement” (can’t be Judgemental now, can we?) in the upbringing of their offspring.
AD-RtR/OS! (762310) — 6/27/2011 @ 11:11 amOMG, the ramifications!
“So even if parents have the fortitude to say no, mean no, and not waver, it seems there is always a do-gooder attempting to assuage the hurt feelings of the little spitfire doing his best to rule his world.”
And Thomas thinks that the do-gooder doesn’t have a First Amendment right to do that.
stone (e546cc) — 6/27/2011 @ 11:25 amSo you think a do-gooder talking to your kid at the grocery store has infringed on your civil rights?
MayBee (081489) — 6/27/2011 @ 11:31 amWhat should we do to people who talk to children – in a store!- without first getting the parents’ permission?
I believe it is well established that minors cannot enter into contracts without a parent’s permission.
MayBee (081489) — 6/27/2011 @ 11:34 amI also believe that parents can stand for their children and stop unwanted communication with their children.
But I cannot agree that someone is infringing on a *right* for merely communicating with a minor without prior consent from an adult, especially in a non-coerced environment (public school would be a coerced environment)
I think that’s a good way to put it, Maybee.
At the end of the day, we delude ourselves if we put the government in every nook and cranny of parenting and speech, anyway. There’s a conflict between parents shielding their kids and people speaking freely, and just living with that is not the end of the world. Good parents can overcome it by instilling good values, and of course, that is not an exact science and kids will encounter bad things and do bad things as they grow up. It’s just not the end of the world.
Dustin (c16eca) — 6/27/2011 @ 11:38 amI don’t want to mistate it, but Ace’s argument was along the lines of “get real – sure parents COULD prevent access to sugar cereal but many are sucky parents and WON’T. Meanwhile, how do we protect those kids from sucky parents when professionals trained in the art of persuasion target them for profit?”
THe concern is that some parent’s just don’t have them in it. That’s the REAL argument of all of them, really, even when they try to come up with another one.
SarahW (af7312) — 6/27/2011 @ 11:48 amThomas wants to require parental consent for communication with children.
Sam (8d527c) — 6/27/2011 @ 11:54 amHow would that impact school?
Since there is a principle that parents can opt out of some lessons, it must mean that simply sending children to school, particularly when mandatory, is not blanket consent.
Does he believe/want that parents then have to consent to not merely every subject and topic, but to every lesson plan and the specific method in which it is presented?
Or is he trying to establish a principle by which parents can more generally opt of or challenge mandatory requirements, or sue school authorities because of the transmission of undesired information?
The sophistry spit out at justice Uncle Thomas never ceases to amaze.
JD (306f5d) — 6/27/2011 @ 11:57 amYeah, Sarah. I agree. Sadly, one reason they don’t have it in them is that the government ‘takes care of it’ for them, or purports to. Sex education? Don’t worry about it. Your gym teacher has you covered. Drugs? Don’t worry about it. We’ve got a campus resource zero tolerance officer. Even political issues are left to social studies teachers to some extent.
A lot of people think the government should take care of us, especially when it comes to ‘protecting children’. Over a couple of generations, it’s led to a shift in what some parents think they are qualified and capable of doing. And those parents will fight very hard to ‘protect’ their kids by making sure government is empowered to fulfill this role it is completely incapable of doing a satisfactory job of.
Of course, there’s nothing stopping a parent from realizing they still need to do all the gruntwork themselves, but it’s hard, and many people fall for this crap.
Dustin (c16eca) — 6/27/2011 @ 11:59 amRed and Maybee–
I think the “stranger effect” often works.
Working in retail, I see crying kids a lot, and often just walking up and saying “hello” to them will cause at least a momentary pause, as they figure out who this stranger is.
The clerk offering the ball may have crossed a line, but I suspect she imagined the ball would be forgotten by the time the child next visited the store, and promising it “next time” was a good way to stop the tantrum.
Myself, if the kid is old enough:
“Oh, are you sick? Do you want me to call the doctor?” At this point the child will usually look at me in confusion. “Well, you’re a pretty big kid, so I guess if you’re crying it means you feel sick. Do you want me to call the doctor? Or the ambulance? They’ll take you to the hospital. It will be interesting if you’re the hospital, but it won’t be fun.”
By this time the kid is usually distracted enough that the crying has started to subside.
And, btw, every time I’ve done this, the parent has been amused by it or at least approved, and sometimes joins in. Never a negative reaction.
For smaller kids, I simply reinforce whatever the parent has said. Sometimes I simply have to shepherd them back to Mom from whatever attracted their attention.
The usual explanation from parents usually involves “needs to take a nap” or “had too much candy”.
What’s really scary is the not negligible number of parents who get so involved in their shopping that they don’t notice that little Johnny/Janie has wandered off two departments away, and end up scrambling around the store looking for them ten minutes later.
{If you ever hear “Code Adam” on the store loudspeakers, that means a lost child has been reported to store security and everyone should stop and look for him/her–Adam being a reference to Adam Walsh.)
JBS (510a0a) — 6/27/2011 @ 12:05 pmJBS
when i worked in retail i loved christmas. if the kids started acting up, i would say this,
“See all those domes on the ceiling. Each one has a camera inside it. now i can’t tell you who is watching, but he is making a list and checking it twice…”
if the kids celebrate christmas, etc. their eyes go wide, and they say something like “Santa!”
So i continue: “so you better be very good while you are in our store.”
And usually the kids get REAL quiet after that.
And the script was perfect, because it left an out in case they suddenly say, “we’re jewish” or whatever, so instead i say that its the CIA watching. which also makes them very quiet. 🙂
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 6/27/2011 @ 12:10 pmSex education? Don’t worry about it.
JBS (510a0a) — 6/27/2011 @ 12:11 pmWell, on that issue, at least for my generation, they were absolutely correct. The only time my mother admitted sex was pertinent to my life before I was thirty, was the night before I went off to college, when she admonished me to make sure I never got a girl pregnant–and she didn’t even suggest what means to use. My father never even did that much. Whatever I did learn was from outside sources, so to speak, as corrected by 8th grade health class.
Comment by Aaron Worthing — 6/27/2011 @ 12:10 pm
I’ve tried similar things at Christmastime, but often I’ve been defeated by the retort that “that’s okay; Mommy and Daddy are getting me my presents”. Kids are just not as innocent as they used to be.
But I must salute the seriously wacko mind that can think of threatening kids with the CIA.
JBS (510a0a) — 6/27/2011 @ 12:14 pmYeah, of course. And I’m not complaining about schools teaching kids about that topic. It’s science.
Not to insult your folks, but if it were the case that some parents were falling short on one of their duties, that doesn’t really justify the government taking over that duty for all parents. My complaint, though, is the notion we can just ‘not worry about it’ and leave schools to this task.
Because my sex education in public school was extremely lacking, and any parent who passes this job off to the government is really not doing any better than your folks did to completely leave the issue untouched.
BTW, my advice on this issue is to do what my mother did, which was to get a book doing a great job explaining this topic, and hand it to me, and have me read it. Of course, to get to that point, you need to have raised kids to be smart readers who obey instructions of that nature.
Dustin (c16eca) — 6/27/2011 @ 12:20 pmJBS
> But I must salute the seriously wacko mind that can think of threatening kids with the CIA.
I just said they were making a list and checking it twice. i didn’t say what it was for. 🙂
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 6/27/2011 @ 12:27 pm@ Aaron,
Seriously, there is some messed up stuff in video games, but that is a very weak example to complain about. The game is more offensive for looking like a complete POS (even by Atari standards) than for its “violence.”
I just watched the link to the Custer’s Revenge and while the graphics are primitive at best, I am far more offended that clearly points are gained a by a sex act initiated by a male character than how crappy the game is.
Clearly the cowboy is taking his revenge. Repeatedly. How is that okay?
Anywho, I’m offended by the premise and the route to winning. If my boys were young, I wouldn’t want them playing this game because at some point they would want it explained what is happening. And I as a parent would not want to explain what it is they had been doing to score points. I can’t see any age where the intent and point of this game is acceptable. It may be permissible but that does not mean it’s a prudent decision.
Dana (4eca6e) — 6/27/2011 @ 3:19 pmAnd Thomas thinks that the do-gooder doesn’t have a First Amendment right to do that.
Comment by stone — 6/27/2011 @ 11:25 am
Stone, I’m rather sure you intentionally missed the point of my comment.
Dana (4eca6e) — 6/27/2011 @ 3:20 pmYes, Dana. That game is horrible for the specific reasons you mention.
Dustin (c16eca) — 6/27/2011 @ 3:25 pm_________________________________________
I can see a variety of both liberals and conservatives either giving thumbs up or thumbs down to the ruling. I guess if the video-game industry wanted to please part of the public, it would mimic the ratings code initiated by the movie industry.
With government becoming increasingly graspy, intrusive, know-it-all and pushy — thanks largely to the left — a ruling in favor of government control over video games would’ve given the nanny staters a psychic boost. And that’s the last thing I want to give them, what with matters like Obamacare and attempts to control handguns always lurking around the corner.
Mark (411533) — 6/27/2011 @ 3:30 pmStone thinks like a turd.
DohBiden (15aa57) — 6/27/2011 @ 4:00 pmI would test this decision by making a game where you are in Washington DC and the object is to find and kill politicians, supreme court justices and such. With today’s technology, you can make the political figures look life-like.
The player could choose option “angry liberal” or “angry conservative” and you’d score points by killing the hated politicians, accordingly. The politicians could have different values depending on their importance.
Am I missing something or would it be impossible to ban such a game in light of today’s decision?
j curtis (8e8f40) — 6/27/2011 @ 4:58 pm“Children could buy newspapers and books without parental consent, and they could listen to people speak without parental consent.”
Awesome! Now children can buy hard-core porn without their parent’s consent!!!1! After all, they now have a first amendment right to it.
nash (dad5c7) — 6/27/2011 @ 6:50 pmNash, they don’t have to buy it. Shockingly, they come home from school and watch porn on the internet! It is tragic and abhorrent, that they could even have access to this garbage. How do you outlaw this crap, and keep it from minors? The first amendment, was never intended to allow purveyors of smut, to peddle this “visual swill” on film, or in cyberspace.
The Tamandua (4de175) — 6/27/2011 @ 7:04 pmComment by The Tamandua — 6/27/2011 @ 7:04 pm
You can’t. To prohibit any kind of speech–and porn is a kind of speech–you have to be able to prohibit any and all sorts of speech. The government that can prohibit Hustler and porn web sites can also prohibit National Review and NRO, as long as it gets its definitions all in a row. And trust me, it would.
The only defense against porn is not government bans but parents who actually teach their kids what’s wrong about pron.
And it may amaze you, but back when I was that age, we used to come home and “watch” porn in the dirty magazines….
JBS (827a72) — 6/27/2011 @ 7:35 pmYou couldn’t have banned such a game long before today’s decision; even had the case gone the other way you couldn’t have done so. What you could have done, had the case gone the other way, is require children to have their parents’ permission before playing it.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 6/27/2011 @ 8:11 pmNot so long as the Supreme Court continues to maintain that there’s an obscenity exception to the first amendment.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 6/27/2011 @ 8:12 pmPorn is not “free speech”, that is some first amendment loophole, that allows this garbage to proliferate. I had friends in high school who used to look at “nudie books” as well. Was it benficial in any way, shape or form,NOT! I believe in England, porn is illegal, as well it should be, no good comes from viewing this material. Even psychologists, who for years went out on a ledge and made outrageous statements like, “Porn is a kind of sublimation”, it has some benefits and can be beneficial in treating some forms of mental illness and in the treatment of certain personality disorders and sexual anomalies. Many of these same psychologists have revised and/or amended these earlier statements, being fully aware that this “visual swill”, leads to more graphic forms of pornography and social deviance. Promiscuity, infidelity, rape and serial killing have all been linked to sexual addictions that have been the outgrowth of viewing pornography in book and film form. This is a fact, that is without equivocation.
The Tamandua (4de175) — 6/27/2011 @ 8:15 pmIs he wrong? Had this law been opt-in instead of opt-out, i.e. if all it did was prohibit providers from knowingly providing children with games that their parents had specifically forbidden them from playing, would the majority still have struck it down?
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 6/27/2011 @ 8:16 pmI don’t think Alito would have, Milhouse.
That’s an interesting question.
That’s an interesting alternative, though I’m not sure how it could be practically implemented (but assuming you could, I think that would be an interesting difference).
I think Thomas is mainly interested in keeping the federal government out of this issue if a state like California wants to resolve it.
I wish they had one of those balancing tests for free speech and other civil rights cases that gave states some latitude up to a point.
Dustin (c16eca) — 6/27/2011 @ 8:23 pmDustin – they do give them a balancing test …
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
😉
JD (318f81) — 6/27/2011 @ 8:27 pmtouche, JD.
California wasn’t ‘Congress’ until the civil war amendments were interpreted a certain way.
But anyway, you’re always a source of moral clarity on this stuff.
Dustin (c16eca) — 6/27/2011 @ 8:29 pmI usually provide as much clarity as a puddle of mud.
JD (318f81) — 6/27/2011 @ 8:30 pmBased on what? What part of “the freedom of speech” means “except porn”? On what basis can you distinguish porn from other kinds of speech?
What difference does it make whether it’s beneficial? It’s not “the freedom of beneficial speech”, is it?
In England “hate speech” is illegal too. You can be arrested for telling racist jokes, or for telling the truth about Mohammed, or for frankly laying out the Bible’s view on homosexuality. In England you can also be arrested for owning a gun, or for defending your home against burglars. In England you have no right to a jury trial if someone sues you. Those are just a few of the reasons why the USA is no longer part of the UK.
Really? Name some.
This is utter bollocks, without equivocation. There’s not a shred of evidence for it, and never has been.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 6/27/2011 @ 8:30 pmDepends on how seriously you take whoever you’re talking to. Don’t sell yourself short.
Thank you Milhouse for shredding a couple of myths. I was amused to see someone associate serial killers with access to porn. As far as I’m concerned, freedom isn’t neat or clean, and if someone is sexually frustrated, porn is a lot better a way to deal with it than anything short of learning how to approach the opposite sex.
At any rate, you’re right that it’s not ‘freedom of beneficial speech’, and such a freedom wouldn’t even need to be enumerated.
Dustin (c16eca) — 6/27/2011 @ 8:41 pm“Oh boy, yur beautiful”! Gee Milhouse, since when were two people “fornicating” on film, a form of SPEECH! Running around nude and performing indecent, often SHAMEFUL acts of human sexuality is not SPEECH! Their is nothing socially redeeming, nor edifying in two people “going out into the jungle”, on celluloid and doing vile and often unspeakable things to each other, that can be construed as a “socially accepatble” form of “freedom of speech”. The founding fathers would roll over in their graves, knowing that this amendment was being perverted in such a way as to allow pornographers, to hide behind the beauty and sagacity of our Constitution, as they market and peddle this “social pollution”, that you feel, should be constitutionally protected. Just for that “Milhouse”, NO Soup for YOU!
The Tamandua (4de175) — 6/27/2011 @ 8:47 pm“Bollocks” you say. You are sadly, and shockingly misinformed Milhouse. Look up Theodre H. Bundys, final interview in prison, he attributes his psychopathy and serial killing, as being an outgrowth of his compulsion and addiction to pornography, that escalated over a period of years. He claims that pornography was a fuel and catalyst behind his serial killing. Look up Dr. Pat Carnes and his books, and his “research” and treatment “modalities” for patients who are addicted and “slaves”, to pornography. These sex addicts are “crippled” due to the indulgence in this perversion, called pornography. Women are horribly and shamefully objectified as sex objects, and as nothing more than “pleasure receptacles” for men. Let me ask you a question. Would it be okay for your sister or loved one to be a performer in the adult film industry? That’s what I thought Milhouse.
The Tamandua (4de175) — 6/27/2011 @ 8:59 pmWhat a maroon.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 6/27/2011 @ 9:02 pmTamanusa, Ted Bundy was a psycho. He’s your authority on this matter? As access to this material has increased, rapes have decreased.
Sorry, man.
Dustin (c16eca) — 6/27/2011 @ 9:04 pmTed Bundy’s self-diagnosis is hardly convincing.
JD (318f81) — 6/27/2011 @ 9:06 pmDustin, please show me the Justice Departments statistics on “violent sexual crimes”, as having diminished and/or declined, due to the advent and viewing of pornography in American society. That’s right “Mr. Conservative”, continue to champion the pornogrpaher and the virtues of this vice.
The Tamandua (4de175) — 6/27/2011 @ 9:10 pmWho here claims to be Mr Conservative?
JD (318f81) — 6/27/2011 @ 9:13 pmTamandua, GFY.
Dustin (c16eca) — 6/27/2011 @ 9:15 pmTed Bundy was not self diagnosing, he was disclosing to a psychologist, (free associating)his addiction and slavery to pornography. He went on to elaborate how his “need” became stronger, as he sought out more violent and graphic depictions of human sexuality, that in turn helped to fuel and trigger his desire to kill. Serial killing has to have a “sexual trigger”, without a “sexual anomaly” as a trigger behind the multiple killings,(as in Bundy’s case), it could not be defined as “serial killing”. Richard Kuklinski (for example), had many dozens of homicides attributed to him being a “hitman”. He would not be defined as a serial killer. Certainly a sociopath, but not a serial killer.
The Tamandua (4de175) — 6/27/2011 @ 9:19 pmhttp://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1447191/online_pornography_helping_lower_rape.html?cat=5
Dustin (c16eca) — 6/27/2011 @ 9:21 pmOnly an idiot would give even the slightest weight to what Ted Bundy said, since it’s clear he was toying with his interviewers, much like a troll on a discussion thread might.
He is not an authority on any matter whatsoever, especially his own mind.
Dustin (c16eca) — 6/27/2011 @ 9:22 pmAs a matter of fact, right at this moment I am eating mushroom and barley soup. It’s from a can and not great, but with the addition of sufficient schug it’s delicious.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 6/27/2011 @ 9:23 pmI’ve read your posts Dustin. You play the conservative card with regularity (when it’s convenient), just not now, right?
The Tamandua (4de175) — 6/27/2011 @ 9:24 pmThat sounds very good, Milhouse. I can tell I like you simply based on your soup choices.
Dustin (c16eca) — 6/27/2011 @ 9:25 pmTaumada person – you should not allow porn to have such control over your life.
JD (318f81) — 6/27/2011 @ 9:25 pmTamundua, I think pornography is obscene, and dearly wish there was a way to control it from children.
But that doesn’t mean I have to agree with how you’ve argued your point, and it doesn’t mean I think my preference should be imposed by federal or state laws.
I have a lot of personal desires that a larger interest in classical liberalism is in conflict with.
Anyway, sure, I’m a social conservative.
Dustin (c16eca) — 6/27/2011 @ 9:27 pmBeautiful, a Professor of Economics, is proclaiming that porn has aided in the decline of rape. That’s compelling..
The Tamandua (4de175) — 6/27/2011 @ 9:27 pmI thought it was compelling. I think about that a lot when looking at how cultures in the middle east have so much awful violence, particularly towards women.
Dustin (c16eca) — 6/27/2011 @ 9:30 pmRead at least part of the article:
“Kendall’s study is quick to point out that an “association” is not the same as a “causal relationship,”
DUH. Correlation IS NOT CAUSATION.
A course in Logic should be required of all college students.
Tamandua, just FYI, there’s been a proliferation of sock puppets at this site pretending to be something they are not. Occasionally, the mask slips off the sock, and their true proclivities are revealed.
Miranda (4104db) — 6/27/2011 @ 9:33 pmIt has nothing to do with the adroitness or skill in arguing, Dustin. It has to do with right and wrong. Simple. Just check your conscience, it’s a healthy barometer, that should dictate how we live our life. Appropriately, it’s a little hard to discuss the virtues of porn and it’s usage, dontcha think?
The Tamandua (4de175) — 6/27/2011 @ 9:36 pmOh “gee” Miranda, sorry, better make sure my “sock mask” stays up. Sorry if you don’t approve of my FREE SPEECH! By the way Miranda, what are your proclivities?
The Tamandua (4de175) — 6/27/2011 @ 9:39 pmYou should be shocked Dustin, how women are treated so poorly in some middle eastern cultures. Think about the exploited runaways, who are drug addicted and lonely and now being further victimized by the “porn industry”, that wants to USE them as objectified pieces of meat, for somebodys viewing pleasure. Does anything I say strike you right?
The Tamandua (4de175) — 6/27/2011 @ 9:42 pmAre you talking about me, Miranda? I’ve commented at this blog thousands of times. I’m no sock puppet. If you have something to say about me, please have the courtesy of saying it to me directly. If you’d like my email address, I’d be happy to discuss this with you off blog.
At any rate. It would be really cool if you could talk to me with the respect I’ve shown you, instead of insinuating something dishonest about my ‘conservative bona fides’. Milhouse and JD are also 100% sincere, not sockpuppets. Though I know you’re not talking about them, we’ve all had a lot of disagreements and discussions without resorting to moby accusations.
Of course not. It’s a bona fide complicated issue. Access to porn is an issue a lot of classic liberals / libertarians who are often considered nominal conservatives have noticed is showing some benefits, and yet also they are aware of the harm.
For example, it’s not like some kid coming across a graphic video online is similar to a kid ten-twenty years ago finding a playboy magazine. A lot of porn these days is extreme and easy for kids to access. I think that’s terrible, but I do have a conflict between that obscenity and the government somehow controlling the internet in a way that solves that problem.
Anyway, you asked me point blank if I’m a conservative, and I gave you my most honest answer.
Dustin (c16eca) — 6/27/2011 @ 9:44 pmI sincerely doubt she’s talking about you. She’s had a lot of very cold statements to say about me, and they started approximately when someone successfully smeared me.
Dustin (c16eca) — 6/27/2011 @ 9:45 pmNot talking about you, Tamandua, re the socks.
I remember listening to Dr James Dobson’s extensive issue with Ted Bundy, about his use of porn etc., years go. Very compelling testimony. Here’s an article w/ video link about it:
http://www.pureintimacy.org/piArticles/A000000433.cfm
The hard truth is that visual images DO affect us – they especially affect young children & teenagers. And obviously not all children have parents to protect them.
If visual imagery wasn’t so powerful, why is there a multi-billion dollar advertising industry in this country?
The obvious tension is between protecting free speech, and protecting children.
Miranda (4104db) — 6/27/2011 @ 9:46 pmTheir is nothing complex about porn. It is wrong. Period.
The Tamandua (4de175) — 6/27/2011 @ 9:46 pmIt’s 100% right as far as I know, other than the shocking part. I’m all too familiar with how horrible the middle east is towards women.
Dustin (c16eca) — 6/27/2011 @ 9:47 pm“interview”, not “issue”, of course
Miranda (4104db) — 6/27/2011 @ 9:47 pmI disagree on this point.
I think Ted Bundy is a lousy authority on this point. We know for sure he was toying with his interviewers for attention.
Anyway, there is porn that is wrong, period. I guess I’m not willing to say any pornographic material is absolutely wrong, though. I’m happy to say I don’t want kids to have access to obscene material, though I again note I don’t know how the government can effectively make that happen without going too far.
What is the mildest thing you consider porn? Perhaps we are just talking about somewhat different concepts.
Dustin (c16eca) — 6/27/2011 @ 9:52 pmMiranda, I sincerely want to protect all children from the scourge of this vice. I also want to protect the lonely, bereft young girl, barely out of high school, who is preyed upon and victimized by the adult film industry. How many of these poor girls(my heart breaks), have contracted incurable STD’s, died from acute despair and loneliness through the lifestyle of the adult film industry, and have had abortions and commited suicide from this horrible type of exploitation. The roll call and litany is staggering.
The Tamandua (4de175) — 6/27/2011 @ 9:53 pmOK. That sounds perfectly reasonable.
I’m sure there are examples of this happening, and I can imagine that industry is particularly heartless on many occasions.
But consider Ginger Lee. She was married to an employed man when she decided to start stripping for additional income, and then entered the adult film industry from there. She seems like an intelligent person who is as satisfied with her choices on this regard as most people are with their jobs.
I think it’s sad some of her work is particularly degrading towards women, and also that she calls herself ‘feminist’, but I’m struck by how completely different a real world example (the only one I know of, to be honest) is from your example.
Dustin (c16eca) — 6/27/2011 @ 9:59 pmNo, we ain’t talking about different concepts. The adult film industry in LA, is wrong senor, pure and simple. Talk to the women, who are shamefully victimized and exploited by some degenerate, who makes his living off of their frailty and brokeness. Many, yes many of these women, who never touched drugs in their life, are heavy duty addicts and users after a short stint in this nasty subculture. I have listened to them, I have spoken to them.
The Tamandua (4de175) — 6/27/2011 @ 9:59 pmMiranda, you made a damn heavy accusation. I’m asking you to back it up.
Dustin (c16eca) — 6/27/2011 @ 9:59 pmI couldn’t agree more Tamandua.
That’s the problem with pure libertarianism. People end up being treated as things – just like under communism etc.
Children are not garbage – disposable – to be thrown away. I detest the men who treat women as things to be bought – prostitutes, porn stars, etc. If you say to them, well, would you like your daughter to be a porn star – they’d be horrified. But it’s all right for someone else’s daughter to be treated like that.
God did not create some people to be treated like human trash, period. Just avert your eyes, men – pretend it’s all great fun, and these women are really having a great time. Keep lying to yourselves.
Miranda (4104db) — 6/27/2011 @ 10:01 pmLet me be honest, I haven’t. I don’t know much about it.
I’m talking about general principles, such as how the government would deal with keeping the internet free of this material, and you’re focused on the impact on the lives of women who act in these films. I think we actually are talking past eachother.
Surely you realize that if no porn was made in the USA, it would still be on the internet unless the government did something radical to stop it. Surely you can grant that this presents a conflict for many good people.
Dustin (c16eca) — 6/27/2011 @ 10:01 pmFor the sake of argument, what if there is a woman who isn’t a frail and broken heavy duty addict? Ginger Lee, for example (I admit, the only one I’ve been using lately, so perhaps an unfair and unusual one). I think there probably are some.
Anyway, this has absolutely no relationship to your Ted Bundy point, and it doesn’t have anything to do with my link to a study trying to relate porn availability to violence against women. It’s a completely different issue, and for some reason, you’re using it to refute my completely different point.
Dustin (c16eca) — 6/27/2011 @ 10:05 pmMiranda, I’m waiting.
Dustin (c16eca) — 6/27/2011 @ 10:06 pmTamandua, what I was saying about correlation vs. causation is that people confuse something that happened as a cause, when it could be just coincidence.
Say that a group of people are trying to lose 10 lbs. Some of them drink coffee. If a greater percentage of those who drank coffee successfully lost the 10 lbs, as opposed to those who didn’t drink coffee, some could conclude – oh, if I drink coffee, I’ll be able to lose weight. Well, of course that’s not necessarily true. It could be that the coffee drinkers got more exercise, etc. Same thing with the rape/porn study. And the article was sloppy as well.
Anyway, I hate seeing poorly conducted studies. One of my pet peeves.
Miranda (4104db) — 6/27/2011 @ 10:15 pmAt least read the study a little more carefully.
Porn is radically more available now. Claims it makes people into serial killers and rapists seem extremely incorrect. Modus Tollens.
If great access to porn was purported by some to lead to rapists and serial killers, and access to porn was greatly increased, and rape declined by a full third, that debunked the claim the opposite would occur.
Sorry, Miranda, you’re mistaken about the reasoning of my source.
BTW, I’m still waiting for you to justify your assertion I am a sockpuppet.
Dustin (c16eca) — 6/27/2011 @ 10:24 pmStill waiting, Miranda.
Dustin (c16eca) — 6/27/2011 @ 10:29 pmDustin, go to bed man..
The Tamandua (4de175) — 6/27/2011 @ 10:40 pmNaw. I’m a night owl.
And I like talking about issues like this. I wouldn’t mind having a discussion with you. You have an absolutist stance which isn’t really making it easy for us to discuss, but I’m happy to wait for someone who is interested in more than that… alternatively, I’m happy to discuss this with you if you like.
Miranda, too, I am happy to discuss any time, especially if she would like to explain specifically why she thinks I’m a sockpuppet.
Dustin (c16eca) — 6/27/2011 @ 10:44 pmSilly Dustin! When did I claim that you were a sock?
Funny – you & Razor & Random all disappeared yesterday on the John Reid story once Lee appeared. That’s too bad.
https://patterico.com/2011/06/26/johnreid9-would-like-to-answer-more-questions/#comments
Miranda (4104db) — 6/27/2011 @ 10:44 pmNothing silly about it. that’s exactly why you have repeatedly insinuated I am one. Are you asserting you do not claim I’m a sock?
Oh look. You did it again.
It just so happens I didn’t see Lee’s appearance. It came several hours after my last comment in that thread, and apparently the only comment that came after his was SPQRs. It appears that was a dead thread at the time.
Anyway, no I am not a sockpuppet for those other people, or anyone else. Nor is anyone here a sockpuppet of me, aside from occasional jokes on the sockpuppet thread. I swear.
Dustin (c16eca) — 6/27/2011 @ 11:20 pm“The sophistry spit out at justice Uncle Thomas never ceases to amaze.”
That’s weird dude, you shouldn’t use that term. Plus it’s almost as if you didn’t read the opinion. How do you get to that term when he’s striking out on his own like this?
“Talk to the women, who are shamefully victimized and exploited by some degenerate, who makes his living off of their frailty and brokeness. Many, yes many of these women, who never touched drugs in their life, are heavy duty addicts and users after a short stint in this nasty subculture. I have listened to them, I have spoken to them.”
This is at least a step more developed than the Roberts court’s choice restricting jurisprudence.
stone (b79151) — 6/28/2011 @ 5:31 amStone/imdw – please list all of the names you have commented under/been banned under. Thank you. Maybe explaint to us about your relationship with Kimberlin, and how you posted links to our host’s home here before. In short, bugger off. The idea that I would listen to you as to what terms I am allowed to use is laughable, you vile lying cowardly dishonest cretin. /spit
JD (b98cae) — 6/28/2011 @ 6:15 am